Bill Clinton Predicted Trump Presidency. Then He & Obama Helped Bring It About

Angry people have become the middle of the political spectrum ~ Geert Wilders (dob 9/6/1963) a Dutch nationalist politician and fan of DJT who has been criminally accused of inciting hatred and discrimination.

Progressive Radio host Thom Hartmann has stated his belief many times that "whichever party first reinvents itself successfully will begin winning elections the way the Democrats did in the 1932-1968 era" [1]. The "reinvention" he refers to is to be pro-worker by opposing sending our jobs overseas.

Unfortunately this past potus election has proven that Thom Hartmann was right. I did not disagree, but I did hope that it would be the Democrats who reinvented themselves. The Democratic potus candidate should have been Bernie Sanders. Bernie Sanders has proven that he is pro-worker by opposing job killing free trade agreements. Bernie Sanders votes against them.

Barack Obama, on the other hand, championed the job killing free trade agreement known as the TPP. This was after suggesting that he might renegotiate NAFTA during his first campaign. Hillary Clinton (viewed by many as a 3rd Obama term) was initially in favor of the TPP. I say that if Bernie had not run that she wouldn't have flipped. She would have run as the pro-TPP candidate.

Trump, an outsider, was the right candidate at the right time. He ran against the TPP, which White Rust Belt Blue-collar voters knew would cost them their jobs. Trump also promised he'd stop brown people (here) and yellow people (overseas) from stealing their jobs (he played the race card). I'm not saying everyone who voted Trump did so because they're racist, but a LOT of them did.

The Trump presidency was, btw, predicted by former president Bill Clinton. He predicted the ascendency of a Trump-like leader with his New Covenant speeches (a series of speeches WJC delivered "at his alma mater, Georgetown University, in late 1991 to outline his political philosophy at the start of his campaign for the presidency").

WJC: ...we're offering a new radical approach to economics. Economics as if people were really important. If we offer these hard-working families no hope for the future, no solutions to their problems, no relief for their pain, then fear and insecurity will grow, and the politics of hate and division will spread. If we do not act to bring this country together in common cause to build a better future, David Duke and his kind will be able to divide and destroy our nation. (Excerpt from then-Governor Clinton's 11/20/1991 New Covenant speech).

Donald Trump offered "hope for the future, solutions to their problems, and relief for their pain" in the form of his rejection of the TPP. Bill Clinton signed NAFTA into law, which is why we got gwb [2]. And Obama and Hillary both spoke favorably of more job-killing free trade. Hillary reversed herself on the TPP, although she was pushed/forced to do so by Bernie Sanders.

Now, most of us know that Donald Trump is a con-man who just said what he needed to in order to get elected. But enough people were fooled. Previously middle class workers (White people in the flyover states, by and large) saw their jobs go overseas due to the Bill Clinton-signed NAFTA. And they feared that it was going to happen again. Obama (for some bizarre reason that baffles my mind) tried to sell the same snake oil [3].

He thought he could ram it though before his administration ended, I guess. Hillary Clinton reversed course because of Bernie Sanders. "I've got to be more like Bernie" she decided (because the voters were responding to Bernie's anti-TPP stance). But the damage was done. Nobody believed her. The White middle class who lost (or could lose) their good paying jobs because of job killing free trade didn't believe her (btw, I thought the bill would pass before the Obama administration came to an end, Obama would sign it into law, HRC would be elected, then she'd put the blame on Obama).

She wanted it, but wouldn't touch it (if she were elected and it had not passed) because it would damage her politically. This is why I blame Obama and I blame both Clintons for the Trump presidency. Trump hijacked the Republican Party and "reinvented" it. Thom Hartmann knew whichever party was first to come out against job killing free trade would win. Bill Clinton PREDICTED what would happen if he failed to offer these workers "relief for their pain". But he went ahead and signed NAFTA anyway.

According to Thom Hartmann, "Donald Trump lead a full-scale war against the Republican establishment and elites, particularly through his attack on both their military and their trade policies". Trump, as president, chucked the TPP. An easy campaign promise to fulfill. The military situation we're in is another story.

He strongly opposed continuing the futile fight in Afghanistan as a candidate. Now he sends more troops? Did that disillusion some of the #trumpdupes? I suspect some were disillusioned. Others will continue to believe that anything Trump does is great. Because he's White. According to the racist blogger Rusty Shackelford.

Rusty Shackelford: Now, now WD... even you would have to admit DJT is so much stronger then the moolie. We are fine with the Pres changing his mind after having all the information presented to him... that's the sign of a strong leader... not a limp wristed dufuss. (8/21/2017 at 9:44pm).

"David Duke and his kind will be able to divide and destroy our nation", Bill Clinton warned. Now it has happened. At the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville David Duke said "the event represented fulfilling the promises of President Trump". He was talking about White racists "taking our country back" after a Black guy got elected president twice.

Regarding Trump's hardcore base, Jamelle Bouie writes (in a 9/1/2017 Slate article) "it's become harder to deny that people support the president not just for being president, but for his core message of White resentment and grievance" (visit the WYD blog and you'll see what I mean).

Bill Clinton both predicted and helped bring this disaster about. His signing of NAFTA and Obama's championing of the TPP lead directly to Trump. Trump was the "white resentment and grievance" candidate. Of course the majority of us realized that Trump was a huge liar and saying whatever he needed to to get elected (except for the racism stuff. Trump IS a racist). This is why he lost the popular vote (the smart people voted for Hillary).

Trump did get rid of the TPP, however. But Bernie Sanders would have done that. Then go on to champion programs to help people harmed by decades of job-killing free trade agreements. Unlike Trump, who wants to kill such programs (the ACA, for example). Additionally Trump wants to hurt poor people by cutting Social Safety net programs drastically and push through enormous tax cuts for the benefit of the wealthy (he's a typical Republican in this regard).

Bernie Sanders should have been the Democratic potus candidate. I'm not saying I think he would have won, only that I KNOW he would have had a better shot. Hillary Clinton was the wrong candidate (even though I'd have liked to see a woman elected president, and YES, I did vote for her). But Bernie Sanders (with his record of opposition against job-killing free trade agreements) was the better candidate. He'd still of had to contend with the Russia meddling. And, instead of misogyny and Clinton-hate, he'd have faced antisemitism and bullshit about him being a Commie who was trying to buy votes with "free stuff".

Bernie Sanders would have won the votes of previously Democratic-voting Rust Belt Blue-collar workers (people who were with him in the primary, but switched to Trump when Bernie didn't secure the nomination). And that, I think, would have made the difference. There would have been no sabotage from James Comey either.

Footnotes
[1] "From 1932 to 1968, the Democratic Party was obviously the majority party. During that time period, the Democrats had won seven out of nine presidential elections, and their agenda gravely affected that undertaken by the Republican Eisenhower administration" (source: Wikipedia/Timeline of modern American conservatism). This period of time is know as the New Deal coalition. As per Wikipedia, "FDR forged a coalition that included the Democratic state party organizations, city machines, labor unions, blue collar workers, minorities (racial, ethnic, sexual and religious), farmers, white Southerners, people on relief, and intellectuals".
[2] "...it was the 1993 fight over the North American Free Trade Agreement that saw the Clinton wing of the Democratic Party stick the knife deep into the back of its longtime ally, organized labor". (Source: How the Democrats Lost Touch on Trade by Thomas Frank. Politico, September/October 2016).
[3] As per a 4/23/2015 CBS News article, "in 2008, then-Sen. Obama ran as a skeptic of free trade agreements and even vowed during the primary to renegotiate NAFTA"... according to the former president "I think that we had a stretch of a couple of decades where, in part because of globalization, you had manufacturing moving to other places in search of low wages, no environmental standards, no labor standards. So trade deals haven't always worked for us".

SWTD #390

The 3rd Way Is The Wrong Way! A Big Reason Why A Reality TV Buffoon Will Be The Next potus

The rise of Trumpism makes perfect sense. Both parties have sacrificed the working class at the altar of globalism ~ Thom Hartmann (dob 5/7/1951) tagline from his 3/23/2016 article They abandoned the 90 percent: How the Reagan Revolution and Third Way politics led America to ruin.

The following excerpt is from the 1998 book Achieving Our Country: Leftist Thought in Twentieth-Century America by American philosopher Richard Rorty.

Members of labor unions and unorganized skilled workers will sooner or later realize that their government is not even trying to prevent wages from sinking or to prevent jobs from being exported. Around the same time those workers will realize that suburban white collar workers themselves, desperately afraid of being downsized, are not going to let themselves be taxed to provide social benefits for anyone else. At that point something will crack. The non-suburban electorate will decide that they system has failed, and start looking around for a strongman to vote for. Someone willing to assure them that, once he's elected, the smug bureaucrats, the tricky lawyers, the overpaid bond salesmen and the postmodernist professors will no longer be calling the shots. One thing that is very likely to happen is the gains made in the past 40 years by Black and Brown Americans and by homosexuals will be wiped out. Jocular contempt for women will come back into fashion. All the resentment which badly educated Americans feel about having their manners dictated to them by college graduates will find an outlet. (As read by progressive Talker Thom Hartmann on the 1/10/2016 airing of his program).

As per Wikipedia "several writers have cited a passage of the book, in which Rorty predicts the rise of an authoritarian strongman who gains popularity among blue-collar workers, as prophetic of Donald Trump's rise to political power".

Yeah, I think so. Even though I still believe (KNOW, I'd say) that Trump was aided greatly by the Republican election fraud scheme known as Interstate Crosscheck (see DSD #54 & SWTD #358).

I do acknowledge, however, that Hillary Clinton was a bad candidate. Also (and I think this is an important point) Barack Obama (IMO) shares a lot of the blame. Because of his support for the TPP. The blue collar workers who voted for Trump did so because "their government is not even trying to prevent wages from sinking or to prevent jobs from being exported".

If Bernie Sanders had been the candidate? I think the Democrats could have won. Because he has always been against these kinds of job-killing free trade deals. Unlike Bill Clinton and Barack Obama (WJC signing NAFTA and BHO's support for the TPP). And don't forget that HRC initially (at least) supported the TPP (calling it the "Gold Standard") and ran as a 3rd term for Obama.

So, while she said she wouldn't sign it as president, people didn't believe her. Ironically, they believed she was just saying what she needed to in order to get elected. I say ironically because (as most/all voters who opposed Trump know), the thin-skinned reality TV buffoon lied his ass off during the campaign.

For the record, I view presidential campaigns as aspirational. In that the candidate states what he'd LIKE to do, not what he (or she) thinks they can do. Realistically they know they will only be able to accomplish a portion of what they're running on. Bernie Sanders what criticized for his proposals supposedly being unrealistic. He'd never be able to get his proposals through Congress, his detractors said. Perhaps, but I believe he would have tried. Trump, on the other hand? I believe was outright lying.

His VP choice (Pence, who is pro-TPP) and the Republican Congress (also in favor of the TPP) told me that Trump was not serious about bringing jobs back. He simply told Blue collar workers what they wanted to hear. Just like he told his dupes that he wouldn't cut Social Security or Medicare, yet cutting these programs are on Speaker Ryan's agenda to be brought up quickly. Bernie Sanders challenged Trump to issue a veto-threat so Congress doesn't waste a lot of time on debating and passing legislation that might not go anywhere (if Trump vetoes). So far no response from Trump.

Anyway, what's clear to me is that the Democrats need to return to their FDR roots. The Democratic Party went astray with the election of 3rd way Democrat Bill Clinton. That is when, according to William Greider of The Nation, the Democratic Party lost it's soul and "abandoned its working-class base".

The shift away from the people was embraced most dramatically when Bill Clinton's New Democrats came to power in the 1990s. Clinton double-crossed labor with NAFTA and subsequent trade agreements, which encouraged the great migration of manufacturing jobs to low-wage economies. Clinton's bank deregulation shifted the economic rewards to finance and set the stage for the calamity that struck in 2008. Wall Street won; working people lost. Clinton presided over the financialization of the Democratic Party. Obama merely inherited his playbook and has governed accordingly, often with the same policy-makers. (How the Democratic Party Lost Its Soul. Dec 1-8, 2014).

The Democratic Party needs to get a hell of a lot more Progressive. It's looking like they realize this (fortunately), but it took a horrific defeat (by a thin-skinned liar who has no idea what he's doing as far as the potus job goes) and a (very likely) disastrous Trump administration for them to get the message.

I am dreading the next four years, during which I anticipate rights to be rolled back for African Americans and gay people, our social safety net to be greatly weakened, the wealthy to get even wealthier, the middle class to shrink, the ranks of the working poor to swell, and a recession (possible depression). As well as more war (Trump knows how to defeat ISIS... yeah, right). Possibly a world war.

Video: SNL video making light of the fact that HRC began adopting more and more of the positions of Bernie Sanders as the campaign progressed. Because the voters wanted a more progressive candidate (1:55).

SWTD #367

John Fugelsang On The GOP Ronald Reagan Myths (Via The Stephanie Miller Show's Fridays with Fugelsang)

Hypocrisy is a value that I think has been embraced by the Republican Party. We get lectured by people all day long about moral values by people who have their own moral shortcomings ~ Howard Dean (dob 11/17/1948) The 79th Governor of Vermont (1991-2003) and Chairman of DNC (2005-2009).

The following (selected) quotes from the Friday 1/8/2016 airing of The Stephanie Miller Show by John Fugelsang concerning Ronald Reagan (plus one concerning the NRA and one last one concerning Donald Trump).

->[Republicans] are for the things Reagan said he was for. Reagan said he was for smaller government, but grew by 60 odd thousand jobs. Reagan said he was not for negotiating with terrorists, but armed the same Iranians who helped kill our marines in Beirut. They like Reagan the myth, they don't like Reagan the fact.

->Ronald Reagan gave amnesty to every undocumented immigrant in the country, which makes him to the Left [on this issue] of Barack Obama, Harry Reid and Sylvester Stallone.

->They [The NRA] don't care. They want more gun violence. More violence means more profit. How many guns have Obama confiscated? That's right, none. Every time there's a massacre the NRA sends out this mailing list. I encourage all your listeners to subscribe to the NRA mailing lists online and they'll see [what a] racket [this is]. They'll tell you Obama is coming for your guns, and then people go out and buy more guns because the Skeeters believe this. The gun manufacturers make more money the more massacres.

->Between Kim Jong Un, Donald Trump, Rand Paul, Jeb Bush and Jaden Smith, [it's] not a good year for nepotism so far.

->[Sarcastically] Can you believe that Barack Obama has done nothing about this [North Korea testing an H-Bomb]? You know what a man would do? A man would pour billions and billions of dollars into a missile defense system that doesn't work. Obama has even spent 2 billion on a non functional missile defense system [whereas Reagan spend more than 209 billion].

->Whatever they [Republicans] want to throw at you, you just have to throw back Reagan. I'm sure you've seen it - they're trying to smear Hillary Clinton with Bill Cosby. And with Bill Clinton. [The] Juanita Broaddrick [allegation] has been exhumed, and now, of course, Hillary Clinton is a rape apologist. They can't beat her on the issues, so they're going to try to smear a woman... [Sarcastically] By the way, if you're a political party looking to get more female voters, blame women for their husband's cheating [not that rape is cheating... Bill Clinton has been accused of both].

->They're going to come out and say Juanita Broaddrick was raped by Bill Clinton. There's no way to prove it one way or the other. It's he said, she said. But, by this logic, Selene Walters, the woman who claimed that Ronald Reagan raped her when he was president of the Screen Actor's Guild. Kitty Kelly documented it thoroughly in her book, and, at the time, she told several people that Reagan... forced himself on her. So, anyone who says you have to believe Juanita Broaddrick has to believe Selene Walters.

->There is one group that Trump hasn't attacked - that's ignorant White guys with small penises. If he began doing that... [then he'd drop in the polls, given the fact that angry White guys constitute his base].

[End John Fugelsang Quotes Via Stephanie Miller 1/8/2016]

Speaking of Donald Trump, he has also been accused of rape... by his ex-wife ex-wife Ivana Trump, who "once used [the word] rape to describe an incident between them in 1989. She later said she felt violated by the experience" (Ex-Wife: Donald Trump Made Me Feel Violated During Sex.

So, as a Democrat, do I believe that Juanita Broaddrick is a liar, while Selene Walters and Ivana Trump told the truth? I don't know. The point (that John Fugelsang was making) is that Trump (and the other Reagan idolizing GOP potus hopefuls) attacking HRC over what her husband may or may not have done smacks of hypocrisy. (May or may not = rape. WJC definitely cheated with a number of consensual affairs).

And the Reagan idolizers and mythologizers are hypocrites when they attack Barack Obama and/or Hillary Clinton for doing/being guilty of of things Ronald Reagan did/is guilty of (10 Things Conservatives Don't Want You To Know About Ronald Reagan).

Also, let us not forget that when Repubs attack Bill Clinton, they're attack a very popular ex-president (Bill Clinton is incredibly popular. How much will that help Hillary's 2016 campaign?) and (more importantly) Bill Clinton isn't running for anything - it's his wife who is seeking the presidency. Which isn't to say that I believe Bill Clinton's sex life (or, rather his sex life back in the 80s and 90s) should be "off limits". Just keep the hypocrisy in mind. And the fact that Bill isn't running.

And there is also the fact (as evidenced by WJC's popularity) that people don't care too much about rehashing a decades old debate. So I doubt these attacks will have much of an effect on HRC's campaign or the enthusiaism of her voters. (And, for th record here, I don't include myself in this group, as I will be voting for Bernie Sanders in the primary. Provided his name is on the ballot and he hasn't "suspended" his campaign prior to the primary in my state. If he has? Then I will be voting for HRC. And my "enthusiasm" - such as it is - won't be impacted. Not by any attacks on HRC by way of attacking her husband).

Image: Hal Sparks, Stephanie Miller and John Fugelsang arrive at the 10/21/2011 Sexy Liberal Tour.

SWTD #318

On Hillary Clinton Saying (During the Democratic Debate) That She is "A Progressive That Likes To Get Things Done"

When someone shows you who they are, believe them the first time ~ Maya Angelou (4/4/1928 to 5/28/2014) an American author, poet, dancer, actress, and singer.

Note: This commentary concerns the 1st Democratic Party presidential debate, which was held on 10/13/2015 in Las Vegas NV at the Wynn, a luxury resort and casino owned by self-described "job creator" Steve Wynn. This would be the whiner who bitched about the Obama administration painting a "bulls-eye" on his back by promoting "class warfare" (a slight increase in taxes on the wealthy by returning to the Clinton-era rates) prior to Obama's election to a 2nd term.

Hillary, when asked by Anderson Cooper if she identifies as a Progressive, said she does. This is an example of Hillary "casting herself as a liberal fighter who has been progressive for her entire life". (Something a CNN article says her campaign is doing). However (the CNN article goes on), "to many on the left, those lines never really rang true".

To which I say yes, Hillary claiming to be a Progressive does not ring true for me. First of all, as Anderson points out, Hillary just recently said "you know, I get accused of being kind of moderate and center [to which] I plead guilty" (at a Women for Hillary event in Ohio on 9/10/2015). I think that statement represents the truth of where Hillary stands politically. She is not a Progressive, but claiming to be one because that is what Democratic presidents of late do... they run to the Left but move to the Center (Right) after they're elected. Bill Clinton did it and so did Barack Obama.

I'd like to believe Hillary on this, but, given the fact that she JUST identified as a Moderate, I can't. Does this fit in with the Right's "untrustworthy" narrative? No. They're referring to bogus "scandals" regarding her email (SWTD #313) and the phony-baloney never-ending House "investigation" into Benghazi. This would be the "investigation" that CA Rep. Kevin McCarthy recently admitted was a politically-motivated waste-of-taxpayer-money effort to damage her presidential campaign.

So, while I recgonize that these bogus scandals are no reason to find HRC "untrustable" (the palinism used by the former potential Boner replacement), I don't trust HRC to act as a "liberal fighter". Unless by "act" you mean to play a part. For example, she says that now she's opposed to the extremely bad trade deal being pushed by the Obama administration known as the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). But, while serving as Obama's secretary of state, she referred to it the "gold standard" (as well as exciting, innovative, groundbreaking... and numerous other superlatives).

When AC360 brought this up Hillary's response was that she had hoped it would be the gold standard, but now she has concluded that it isn't. Not a biggie, perhaps. Even though PolitiFact concludes that Hillary revising her past statements on the TPP is "half true" because "her previous remarks actually gave the impression that she had confidence in the deal as it stood". However, as a member of the Obama administration, she couldn't very well come out against it. Surely it would be awkward if she had publicly contradicted an administration she was a part of?

The important thing is that she is against it now, right? Except... is she? Remember when Obama was running for office he said "we should use the hammer of a potential opt-out as leverage to ensure that we actually get labor and environmental standards that are enforced". And, according to PolitiFact, Sherrod Brown was "absolutely confident Barack Obama [would] reopen the negotiations on NAFTA" because the administration "assured [Brown that] his [Obama's] position is constant". But did Obama do squat in regards to NAFTA after getting elected?

Not only did Obama renig on his promise to renegotiate NAFTA after his election, he "warned... against a strong impulse toward protectionism" and then BSed the American people, saying he was still "serious about changing NAFTA". Now, in the final days of his administration, he pushing another negotiated-by-and-for-the-plutocrats job-destroying (bad) trade deal? He does this as he's leaving because he won't have to face the voters to answer for his trade treachery.

But, given Obama's campaign fictions regarding renegotiating NAFTA, nobody should be overly surprised he's pushing the job-killing TPP. He is, after all, a self described Blue dog Moderate Democrat. None-the-less, I must say that I am incredibly disappointed. Which isn't to say that I regret my vote, as he absolutely was a better choice than McCain or Romney.

Both of these losing potus candidates, being members of the more-plutocrat-friendly party, support exterminating American jobs via "free trade". In fact, regarding the TPP, McCain says to would be "crazy" to "squander a historic opportunity" to send American jobs to low wage countries, while Romney says expatriating US jobs so the plutocrats can become even richer is "good for America".

But polls show that, while "Americans tend to support trade, they oppose an expansion of status quo trade policies". The status quo being trade agreements (like NAFTA) that destroy American jobs. Although Americans knew NAFTA would cost American jobs back when Hillary's husband ran for president, which is why he said "American companies must act like American companies again, exporting products, not jobs" when he accepted the nomination.

Then, after his election, WJC, in a betrayal of one of his New Convenant promises, signed NAFTA (on 1/1/1994) and, as a result, American citizens heard the "giant sucking sound of American companies fleeing the United States for Mexico, where employees would work for less pay and without benefits".

This was exactly what Ross Perot warned us about. Americans knew that Perot, who ran on this SINGLE topic was right, which is why he received 18.81 percent of the popular vote, "the most won by a third-party presidential candidate since Theodore Roosevelt in 1912". (And Perot, had he had not dropped out of the race and later re-entered it, might have ended up with an even higher percentage).

"Will you say anything to get elected" the Coop asked HRC in regards to her flip-flop on the TPP (in addition to other positions she has "evolved" on... see video below). Hillary said no. But was she being completely honest or simply giving her sales pitch... one designed solely to sell her as president?

Three words help explain why Hillary Clinton now opposes the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade accord - after once laying the groundwork for it as secretary... Her newfound opposition... protects her left flank against Bernie Sanders' challenge; it helps her solidify her support with organized labor... It's also consistent with modern Democratic politics: In the 2008 Democratic primaries, both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton railed against NAFTA and free trade accords. But after winning the Democratic nomination, Obama warmed up to free trade... he's now made this TPP trade accord a chief goal in his final months in the White House. So it wouldn't be surprising if Clinton makes a similar move back to the middle if she wins the nomination next year. (Hillary Clinton Protects Left Flank With TPP Opposition by Mark Murray. NBC News 10/7/2015).

While I'd welcome a genuine change of position (re the TPP) and identification (Moderate to Progressive) from HRC, I frankly do not believe her reversal is genuine. It might be, and if she is the nominee I will vote for her and hope that she does not move to the center, but why take that chance when the possibility that we might get snookered again is a strong (IMO) possibility? Why not vote for the true Progressive in the Primary and make Bernie Sanders our nominee?

Bernie Sanders, the founder of the Progressive caucus, is a lifelong Progressive with a proven track record. He does not need to move to the Left for the election because he's always been to the Left. Which, IMO, is what America desperately needs... a genuine Progressive in the White House. This is what America wants, as WJC and BHO lying about their positions on free trade during their respective campaigns proves. They were saying what they needed to in order to get elected, that is. I'm not saying they did not believe what they were saying at the time.

But, that both of our previous Democratic presidents moved to the Left during their campaigns, is proof that America wants a genuine Progressive as their next president. And the ONLY genuine proven Progressive is Bernie Sanders, which is why I'm supporting him for president. At least until HRC defeats him in the primary. Which, if this happens, will mean that the American people bought her sales pitch. It will mean they listened to the naysayers who don't believe that a Democratic Socialist can win the general. But I think that he can, because he's the president America needs. And if enough Democrats realize and vote for him in the primary - he will win in the general.

BTW, in regards to Steve Wynn, US News & World Report notes that he "leans Republican but calls Democratic debate hosting a point of pride". So what's going on here? Does Wynn's pride stem from the fact that he can curry favor with both sides? Is this an indication that he'd be OK with HRC being elected the next potus? I think the answer to this question is YES, and is yet another reason why Democrats should be voting for Bernie.

Video: Hillary Clinton says she is a "progressive who likes to get things done"... but does she mean that she's a progressive (only while running for the Democratic nomination) and that what she'd like to "get done" is getting elected potus #45? (transcript).

SWTD #315

More Bill Clinton Impeacher Sex Hypocrisy

I think what he did in this matter was reprehensible... I feel very comfortable with my vote ~ Mark Sanford (dob 5/28/1960) current House member representing SC and former SC Governor who was facing impeachment for an extramarital affair (although he was censured and not impeached), explaining his decision to back impeachment articles against Clinton (on 12/19/1998 during his original stint in the House).

And this time it's not just more hypocrisy, in that we're not talking about one of these impeachers cheating on their wives, but illegalness, as now we're now talking about an impeacher who buggered did something inappropriate with a young boy (allegedly).

Although, in regards to what he's being charged with (withdrawing money while attempting to circumvent laws that say a bank withdraw over 10k has to be reported to the feds), I believe that it's been pretty well established that he did this (in violation of the law). Although nobody is guilty until convicted (so this crime is also "alleged" I guess).

I'm referring, if you've read this far and still don't have a clue, to the following...

Former Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert was paying a former student to keep quiet about allegations of sexual abuse from the time when Hastert was a teacher and wrestling coach in... Yorkville, Illinois between 1965 and 1981 before entering politics. Federal prosecutors indicted Hastert on Thursday for lying to the FBI about $3.5 million he agreed to pay to an undisclosed person to "cover up past misconduct". A federal law enforcement official confirmed... that the former student was a male and a minor when the alleged abuse took place. Federal law enforcement officials also said that investigators decided not to pursue a possible extortion case in the matter. (Hastert's hush money was to cover up sexual misconduct with former student, sources say by Alexandra Jaffe, Tom LoBianco and Pamela Brown. CNN 5/29/2015).

To be clear, it's the banking laws and not the (alleged) inappropriate behavior that he's in trouble for (which might be statutory rape, rape, or inappropriate touching).

Anyway, now we know that *all* those in the House leadership position (3 individuals in total) were guilty of sexual misconduct. The first hypocrite, Newt Gingrich was cheating on his wife at the same time the House was preparing to impeach Mr. Clinton for lying about cheating on his wife with WH intern Monica Lewinsky.

Because news of his cheating got out, Newt was forced to step down. The next guy the House Repubs selected as Speaker was Bob Livingston [3] who, "on the day of the impeachment vote... announced he was resigning following revelations that he had engaged in an extramarital affair". Although it was actually four women Livingston cheated with and he came clean because Larry Flynt outed him.

Then they selected Denny specifically because they thought he was scandal free. But now we know they were wrong, as the (alleged) misdeeds took place before Hastert entered politics (What We Now Know About The Men Who Led The Impeachment Of Clinton).

By the way, when I say "alleged" I mean we all know he did it, but that it just hasn't gone to court yet and the conviction is still a ways off. Which there damn well should be (a conviction), even though Hastert cries about being a "victim".

Fox Nooz pundits too have attempted to paint poor Denny as a victim of "a blackmailer, extortionist" (according to Brit Hume and Geraldo Rivera), although legal expert Lisa Bloom points out that "threatening to expose someone unless he pays you is extortion [while] threatening to sue someone unless he pays you is legal and common". (Fox News And The Victimization Of Dennis Hastert).

This represents further hypocrisy on the Right, if you ask me. Alan Dershowitz, desite being a supposed "political liberal", writes for the far Right site NewsMax where he says the case smells and that Denny "was trying to solve a rather personal problem".

Does the fact that "on 12/30/2014, a FL court filing named Alan Dershowitz as one of several prominent figures alleged to have participated in sexual activities with a minor" have anything to do with Dershowitz referring to (alleged) child molestation as "a rather personal problem"? I'm not sure. I do know that this guy is someone I used to have some respect for, but now I'm feeling a lot different about him [4].

But I digress. The purpose of this commentary was to point out the hypocrisy of the three GOP Speakers who participated in impeaching Bill Clinton over a "rather personal problem", when (in regards to Clinton) it actually was, but with Hastert it was not. Because Monica Lewinsky was above the age of consent and the affair was consensual.

Although Gingrich and Livingston's affairs were also consensual. Still they were hypocrites due to them thinking Bill Clinton lying about sexual indiscretions was an impeachable offense when they had indiscretions of their own that they did not want disclosed (for obvious reasons). No doubt both men lied numerous times before getting caught.

And they think Clinton lying about cheating on his wife was something to impeach him over? When they likely did the same so their wives would not find out? In any case, the only reason they settled on the lying about sex charge was because none of the other things they investigated the Clintons over panned out.

First Kenn Starr looked into the suicide of Vince Foster (in regards to an out-there conspiracy theory concerning Hillary Clinton murdering him)[5], then he moved on to Whitewater (but no wrongdoing by the Clinton's concerning this land deal in which they lost money could be proven) and finally he went after him for lying about an affair.

This, when it turns out the final Speaker they brought in had committed real crimes involving sex. In the end the persecution of the Clintons turned out to be nothing but a politically-motivated witch hunt by reprehensible hypocrites, lead by an individual we thought was scandal free all these years... except that he turned out to be the most hypocritical (and actual alleged law-breakiest) of all!

Remember Hastert's ignoring of the Mark Foley scandal? RawStory says "it had long been rumored that Hastert was aware of Foley's activities but had chosen to take no action".

And, in an act of even further hypocrisy, "Dennis Hastert promoted himself as a crusader against sexual abuse of children".

In July 2006, shortly before Democrats won the midterm congressional elections and ended his speakership, Hastert spearheaded a bill to toughen punishments for sex crimes against children. The legislation, named after the abducted and murdered Florida boy Adam Walsh, passed the Republican-controlled House unanimously. In a statement at the time, Hastert said protecting children from predators was as high a priority for him as national security - this, post-9/11 and during two wars. (Article by David Sirota, International Business Times 5/29/2015).

Despite all this the offended Alan Dershowitz says "I suspect they're going to lose this one" in regards to the case against Hastert. But if there is any karmic justice at all I really think that should not be what happens.

Somebody really should have squealed on Hastert back in 1998 when Hustler Magazine publisher Larry Flynt offered one million dollars for each unflattering sexual story about Republican members of Congress. Seriously, it's a crying shame he paid out in regards to Livingston but not Hastert.

Notes #1-2 and Footnotes #3-5
[1] Mark Sanford (quoted at the top of this commentary) represented SC's 1st district for 3 2-year terms from 1995-2000 (and it was during this House tenure that he voted to impeach Clinton). Next he served as SC governor for 2 4-year terms from 2003-2011. During his 2nd term he faced impeachment due to his own extramarital affair, although the state legislature voted 6–1 against impeachment, stating that they had better things to do... although they did censure him and due to the scandal Sanford abandoned a possible 2012 bid for the WH. Sanford did not resign and finished out his term. He returned to the House in 2013 (representing the same SC Congressional district).
[2] In regards to the word "buggered" which I strike out above (because the allegations involve touching, I believe, and not "buggery", which involves penetration. Although we do not really know exactly what happened), I am unsure if this word is considered offensive by gay people. Although pedophiles (if Hastert is one, and the evidence says he likely is) are usually straight, not homosexual, men.
[3] Further irony regarding Louisiana rep. Livingston... after he left Congress in disgrace due to his being outed as a cheater by Flynt, he was succeeded by the philandering David Vitter — who later admitted to having been involved in a prostitution ring run by Deborah Jeane Palfrey!
[4] Dershowitz Denies Rape Allegations as New Court Documents are Filed, Ring of Fire 1/22/2015.
[5] Vince Foster was just one of several dozen people the Clintons are alleged to have offed. Debunking this FALSE conspiracy theory Snopes says "in a frenzied media climate where the Chief Executive couldn't boff a White House intern without the whole world finding out every niggling detail of each encounter and demanding his removal from office, are we seriously to believe the same man had been having double handfuls of detractors and former friends murdered with impunity?"

SWTD #285

Straight from The Warped, Psychotic, Brain-diseased, & Idiotic Mind of A Lunatic Libertarian Douchebag

The Bowles-Simpson proposal has become a kind of short-hand in Washington for what a balanced, bipartisan deficit-reduction deal could look like. When given a closer look, the plan is anything but balanced. Bowles-Simpson is touted by inside-the-Beltway pundits who think that cutting benefits for seniors who have an average income of $22,000 a year is the type of "hard choice" we need to be making. We should not and need not reduce the deficit on the backs of seniors and others who survive on a low income ~ Jan Schakowsky (dob 5/26/1944) the Democrat representing Illinois's 9th congressional district, serving since 1999. The Congresswoman was a member of the 2010 National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform (AKA Bowles-Simpson Comission). The Rep voted against the commission's final proposal.

Refuting lies about me in regards to past comments ("old bones" some might say) on another blog are why I have decided to author this commentary. Lies from the blog "Contra O'Reilly" put forward by one Willis Hart in a blog post of his from 7/12/2014.

Willis Hart: On the Assertion that Bowles-Simpson is a "Conservative Plan"... Only in the warped, psychotic, brain-diseased, and idiotic mind of a lunatic leftist douchebag would anything even remotely along these lines even be considered. The fact of the matter here is that the ratio of spending cuts to tax increases in Bowles-Simpson is only about 1.4 to 1, and the only reason that it's even this high is because of interest apparently having been included. Compare this to the ratios of the ACTUAL conservative debt consolidation packages which have consistently put forth a cuts to revenue ratio of approximately 5 or 6 to 1... or even to that deal which Obama almost had with Boehner which was pretty damned close to 4 to 1 and, if anything, Bowles-Simpson is probably a little bit to the left of center. Of course, if you yourself are so brazenly to the left that you actually consider people like Bernie Sanders, Van Jones, Francis Boyle, and Bill Ayers as mainstreamers, and even go as far as to quote Joseph Stalin, you're probably going to think that pretty much anything is "conservative", I would think. (7/12/2014 AT 12:32pm).

Yet another post from this doofus in which he, for some strange reason, makes it out to be that I alone in the entire world hold a position that is so incredibly ridiculous that all those negative adjectives are necessary. And he lies about people I view as "mainstream", none of which I really view as "mainstream".

I like Bernie Sanders, and I like Van Jones. Senator Sanders describes himself as a socialist. His voters seem to like him, although I will absolutely admit that Senator Sanders is to the Left of mainstream... although Bernie Sanders is the founder of the House Progressive Caucus, which is the largest Congressional Congress. Isn't being the largest a hallmark of being mainstream?

Van Jones I would describe as a Progressive that fights for the Middle Class. The Middle Class isn't "mainstream"? But he may be a little to the Left as well when compared to the Democratic Party at large, which I would describe as skewing Conservative. Bill Clinton described himself as a New Democrat, which means he considered himself a Democrat who was "economically neoliberal".

New Democrats claim to be "an ideologically centrist faction within the Democratic Party" but their adoption of neoliberal policies also advocated for by the Right makes New Democrats CONSERVATIVE Democrats.

New Democrats were more open to deregulation than the previous Democratic leadership had been. This was especially evident in the large scale deregulation of agriculture and the telecommunications industries. The New Democrats... were responsible for the ratification of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). (Wikipedia/New Democrats/Bill Clinton as a New Democrat).

Also, under the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) the Democrats began (more) aggressively pandering to the business community (which the deregulating and free trading advocating was a part of) in order to secure more campaign cash (bribes). DLC/New Democrats viewed their past losses (losses that sent Reagan and Bush Sr) to the White House as being related to Republican campaigns being better funded. Better funded because GOP candidates had greater greater access to the Conservative Business (plutocrat) money pool.

The "New Democrat" movement was a response to this funding issue. Incorporate Conservative ideas in order to get Conservative business money. New Democrats are Conservative Democrats.

The Blue Dog Coalition "is a caucus of United States Congressional Representatives from the Democratic Party who identify themselves as moderates and conservatives". This caucus was formed in 1994 during the presidency of Bill Clinton. Wikipedia notes that "the term Blue Dog Democrat is credited to Texas Democratic Rep. Pete Geren... who later joined the Bush Administration.

Our current president, the fellow who appointed Bowles and Simpson to co-chair the so-called "bipartisan" commission tasked to produce debt reduction legislation, is a self described Blue Dog. Erskine Bowles is a Conservative Democrat [1] who served as Bill Clinton's Chief of Staff. Alan Simpson, a former Republican Congressman who "George H.W. Bush reportedly considered Simpson for the vice presidency in 1988".

So what we have in this "debt reduction" commission is Conservative Democrats partnering with Republicans. And, if that is not enough information to know for a fact that ANY "compromise" that MIGHT have come out of the commission would most certainly skew to the Right, there is also the fact that reducing the government's debt in response to a poorly performing economy (AKA austerity) is an ENTIRELY Conservative idea.

Keynesian economics - the economic theory subscribed to by TRUE Leftists and Left of Center Democrats - "is the view that in the short run, especially during recessions, economic output is strongly influenced by aggregate demand (total spending in the economy)". Talking debt reduction (austerity) in response to an economic downturn is a wholly Conservative concept.

Heck, the NAME of the commission was the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform. "Fiscal responsibility" is code for "austerity". The idea that austerity is the answer to economic downturns is in complete opposition to the theory behind Keynesiansim.

As such, NO debt reduction (i.e. austerity) plan coming from such a commission could in any way NOT be Conservative! Now, if the Democrats had proposed a commission in which cutting waste and improving efficiency were components - but which focused on Keynesian stimulus and job creation ideas - THAT would be a plan truly befitting Democratic economic ideals.

But a plan of action that immediately concedes that the very ideals the Democratic Party is built upon are wrong and capitulates that the Republican austerity is the way to address an economic downturn? Such a plan is CONSERVATIVE from the get-go. It does not matter if "the ratio of spending cuts to tax increases in Bowles-Simpson is only about 1.4 to 1".

And there is also the fact that the spending cuts included items that would actually hurt our economy like using the (bogus) chained-CPI to take money out of the pockets of Seniors (and other Social Security recipients). Non-conservatives view the chained-CPI as a non-starter.

The Nation: [Bowles-Simpson and the White House] depicted [the chained CPI] as a "more accurate" formula that "will reduce deficits and improve Social Security solvency". ...but there's no debating these simple points: Chained-CPI is both a benefit cut and a tax increase. (Top 5 Myths About Chained-CPI, Debunked by George Zornick, 4/11/2013).

In addition to the chained CPI, Bowles-Simpson wanted to "increase the early and normal retirement age to 68 by 2050 and 69 by 2075". But the problem with all these Social Security cuts is that the money in the Social Security Trust Fund has nothing to do with our national debt!

Truthout: [The Social Security trust fund is invested in Treasury Securities amounting to] $2.7 trillion... [This] came about not because entitlements are out of control and the government has been forced to borrow to meet retiree benefits, but rather because future retirees have paid more taxes than necessary to meet benefit obligations. Workers have essentially been prepaying into the Trust Fund in order to provide for their future benefits. So it makes no sense to try to solve the supposed problem of too much government debt by cutting benefits for current and future Social Security recipients. (The $17 Trillion Delusion: The Absurdity of Cutting Social Security to Reduce the Debt by Marty Wolfson, 1/11/2014).

So, not only is the Chained-CPI a non-starter; ANY cut Social Security benefit cut is a non-starter (this includes raising the retirement age, which also is a cut). The ABSURD idea of cutting SS benefits to "reduce the debt" is CONSERVATIVE in nature.

Other "reforms" that would take money out of the pockets of ordinary Americans included cuts to all other "inflation-indexed programs... [such as] the military and civil service retirement system". Still other "reforms" included cuts to student loan programs and cuts that would increase out-of-pocket costs for Medicare beneficiaries. All which would be cuts in opposition to the theory of Keynesianism which says cutting (austerity) makes economic downturns WORSE, not better.

So, again, it DOES NOT MATTER that "the ratio of spending cuts to tax increases in Bowles-Simpson is only about 1.4 to 1" because it is a CONSERVATIVE idea that austerity is economically beneficial!

Now, I'm not saying that Bowles-Simpson had nothing positive in it at all. There were actually some proposals Democrats could get behind in the Debt Reduction plan (such as reforming farm subsidies), but it absolutely did skew Conservative (for the reasons I just outlined).

Now, here I should note that Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky released an alternate proposal that actually did provide for balanced deficit reduction. A proposal that did not place so much of the deficit reduction burden on seniors, the middle class, and low-income families.

Rep. Schakowsky's plan proposes increased investment in jobs, infrastructure, education, and research and development to strengthen the economy and generate growth. The plan also calls for the protection of Medicare, Medicaid and Obamacare while proposing additional steps to bring down the cost of health care overall. The plan would raise the top tax rates on the wealthy and end tax subsidies for big oil and highly-profitable corporations that ship jobs and profits overseas. It would eliminate wasteful military spending and focus on modern threats. The plan proposes additional revenue opportunities to strengthen Social Security and achieve long-term solvency without cutting benefits. (9/12/2012 Press Release as posted to the Congresswoman's website).

The Schakowsky plan is considerably closer to what I was previously talking about a plan that included cutting waste and improving efficiency, but which focused on Keynesian stimulus and job creation ideas. The Schakowsky plan IS the Progressive answer to the CONSERVATIVE Bowles-Simpson proposal.

And, if I am "so brazenly to the Left" as Willis asserts, then so too must Jan Schakowsky, as well as other critics of Bowles-Simpson, including Dean Baker of the Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington, who "criticized the deficit report for omitting a tax on the financial industry, as was recommended by the International Monetary Fund" and Paul Krugman, who wrote that "Simpson-Bowles... raises the Social Security retirement age because life expectancy has risen completely ignoring the fact that life expectancy has only gone up for the well-off and well-educated, while stagnating or even declining among the people who need the program most".

Lastly, I have to wonder why the hell names like Francis Boyle and Bill Ayers are added to the mix of people he THINKS I view as "mainstream". They aren't. I've actually spoken against the views/actions of both of these individuals. Not that it matters, I suppose, as in the minds of the idiots who post/comment on the "Contra O'Reilly" blog disagreement by me somehow becomes agreement.

Hence the reference by Willis to me quoting Joseph Stalin, which he thinks I did to "buttress my opinion"... a claim that is complete bullpucky. That I quoted Stalin (which I did) to "buttress my opinion" (I did not) was something the Hartster imagined happened.

And in regards to imagining things, commenter Dennis Marks added canards concerning me defending "Noam Chomsky's pro-Khmer Rouge views [and] Mao worshiper Van Jones [by equating] Maoism to ending police brutality".

The truth is these are both vile lies (although quite typical for the scumbag Marks). *If* Noam Chomsky HAD "pro-Khmer Rouge" views I would NOT defend them. And *if* Van Jones was a "Mao worshiper" I would not defend that either. Both assertions are false, however [2+3].

Also, Maoism has nothing to do with ending police brutality. Van Jones belonged to a group that read the writings of Mao AND advocated against police brutality. But these were two separate things. The advocating against police brutality did not come from the reading of literature by Mao (there is/was no linkage).

In any case, Mr. Jones has changed his mind in regards "world-views and philosophies" that he experimented with in his youth. Van Jones now firmly believes our regulated market system is the best way to achieve desired reforms that will allow the middle class and working poor to prosper.

Footnotes
[1] "Like a lot of technocrats, Bowles is a conservative Democrat who has struggled to find a niche in elective politics". Source: Keep Erskine Bowles Away from Treasury By Timothy Noah, The New Republic 11/8/2012.
[2] The boring truth about Chomsky: he does not support Pol Pot by Michael Brull, The Drum 7/5/2011.
[3] Severe Conservative Delusions: Van Jones Maoist Edition SWTD #144 5/6/2013.

SWTD #269, wDel #69.

What Happened When A Deluded Conservative Ventured Outside His Usual Echo Chambers & His Buddies Weren't There To Stick Up For Him?

We are more connected than ever before, more able to spread our ideas and beliefs, our anger and fears. As we exercise the right to advocate our views, and as we animate our supporters, we must all assume responsibility for our words and actions before they enter a vast echo chamber and reach those both serious and delirious, connected and unhinged ~ Bill Clinton (dob 8/19/1946) The 42nd President of the United States (1/20/1993 to 1/20/20011) who presided over a budget surplus between the years 1998 and 2000, the last three years of his administration.

What happened when a delirious and unhinged Conservative wandered away from his usual echo chambers and his buddies weren't there to stick up for him? He was so shocked he couldn't comment again. This is what happened to dmarks (real name Dennis Marks) when I encountered him recently on a blog where the proprietor did not agree with him when Dennis said I lied. The discussion that ended with Dennis running away was prompted by a post on the blog Progressive Soup titled Fox "News" Once Again Exhibits Common Nonsense.

Following is an excerpt from that discussion (I begin with a snippet from the original post by the author and proprietor of Progressive Soup, Malcolm).

Malcolm: Fox cited [The rapper] Common's spoken word poem from a few years ago ("A Letter to the Law") which includes the line, "Burn a Bush cuz for peace he no push no but-ton. Killing over oil and grease, no weapons of destruc-tion". Fox [has] devoted a lot of airtime to a fake controversy [inviting Common to the White House] in yet another effort to discredit President Obama. (Originally posted on 5/16/2011 & 6/3/2011*). dmarks: Common lied about then current events [concerning no WMD being found in Iraq]... As for Common bashing black people using the N-word, it is not even discussed here. Yes, Fox News [creates fake controversies]. And MSNBC creates fake controversies, and disagrees with Romney... Like the fake Romney bully controversy which MSNBC ran with... and it evaporated: no substance. (6/30/2013). Malcolm: ...simply using the N-word in lyrics is not bashing black people. also, do you believe that weapons of mass destruction were found?! (6/30/2013). Dervish Sanders: dmarks does [believe WMD was found in Iraq]. I have debated dmarks on this topic before and therefore know he is referring to old buried barrels of chemical weapons. But bush scared people by referring to "mushroom clouds". bush was talking about nuclear weapons or missiles or usable chemical weapons, not useless degraded chemicals in buried barrels. dmarks is wrong about Common lying. Common told the truth. bush lied about WMD. [Also, I agree with you that simply using the N-word in a song or rap is not bashing Black people], but don't try to tell dmarks that. He thinks the MSNBC personality (and African-American) Touré "bashed" Herman Cain for being Black. dmarks likes to imagine that Black people are bashing other Black people, or bashing White people. I can't think of even one instance when he complained about a White person bashing a Black person. (7/1/2013). Dervish Sanders: Romney bashed a fellow student because he was perceived to be gay. The story was TRUE. It was confirmed by multiple people, as I recall. Apparently this is a "bashing" dmarks is willing to excuse? Romney was a bully when he was young, and a bully as an adult... when he shut down companies and stole worker's pensions. An all-around bad guy. (7/1/2013). dmarks: [Dervish] is lying here on many things. The existing WMD in Iraq were prohibited by the cease fire agreements. The old weapons were usable, and were WMD and were outlawed. The accusers of Romney refused to come forward... if they ever existed. Toure did in fact bash Cain for being a typical black sexual predator. [Dervish] is also a troll who has gotten banned on many blogs. from mine for posting dozens of profanity-based comments per day in which he ranted about the length of his penis. "Common" did indeed lie. Bush told the truth. (7/1/2013). Malcolm: Dervish Sanders, thanks for stopping by. You called it correctly about dmarks referring to the old weapons as WMDs. I've gone back and forth with him on the Toure thing and as I see above, he's still at it. [He is] distorting Toure's comments about Herman Cain. What he was saying is that there are people who are still threatened by what they perceive to be predatory black sexuality. [dmarks, you have a] false narrative on Toure and you're sticking to it. dmarks, If this doesn't convince you there were no WMDs, nothing will [link to a FactCheck.org article titled "No WMDs in Iraq"]. As for the Romney incident, Phillip Maxwell (who took part in the bullying) confirmed that it happened around the time this story surfaced last year. The victim (John Lauber) has been dead for years and thus was unable to come forward. Romney's response to the accusation wasn't much of a denial. Considering the specifics given of the incident (holding someone down while you cut their hair), I don't believe Romney when he says he didn't recall it. (7/1/2013).

(The first link was inserted by me, it is to an article titled Friend: Romney "Was The Ring Leader" Of 1965 Bullying Incident. The second link is Malcolm's. It is to an article titled Bullying Story Spurs Apology From Romney.)

Dervish Sanders: I am not a troll. I posted no comments containing profanity to dmarks' blog. I never "ranted about the length of [my] penis". These are lies. Also, I have been banned from three Conservative/Libertarian blogs**, but these three people are all buddies who stick together, so it really only counts as one banning. See here for the truth regarding the first banning (from the blog of an individual named Will Hart), and here for the truth regarding why dmarks banned me from his blog. dmarks' narrative regarding Toure is indeed false. Also ridiculous. He says a Black man can "bash" another Black man for being Black. This makes no sense at all. Another false narrative that dmarks sticks to is that WMD was found in Iraq. According to the link Malcolm provided, "the ISG report was sufficient to convince the Bush administration that there were no WMDs to be found". bush should have been convinced when the IAEA told him Iraq had no WMD PRIOR to the invasion, but at least he admits he was "wrong" now, unlike dmarks. In regards to people like dmarks, FactCheck says, "we suggest ridicule". Indeed, that is all these claims warrant. (7/1/2013).

Mine is the last comment (as of the publishing of this blog post). Dennis (AKA dmarks) did not comment again. But two other things happened. First, Malcolm added me to his Google Plus Circles (click on my profile and check under "Have you in circles" to confirm).

The second thing that happened was that Dennis ran back to Willis Hart's blog to complain about his treatment at Progressive Soup. I know this because I found the following comment from him on that blog (Contra O'Reilly)...

dmarks: In fact, WD the Everlasting Blogstalker understood, it, Russ, and he whined about it in someone else's blog. So unfair. (7/1/2013 AT 3:24am).

Dennis is referring to another comment on Progressive Soup in which I called out Dennis for his overuse of the "Mom's basement" insult. Prior to me showing up Dennis had levied that particular insult (an insult wherein Dennis says whoever disagrees with him is a loser who is sitting in front of a computer located in his or her parent's basement). In response to Dennis using that insult I said, "...the mom's basement slander (when you have absolutely no way of knowing) is lame. At first I thought you were talking about me, which was weird because I hadn't commented".

Dennis did not comment again in that thread either. Instead he went running back to the Hartster's echo chamber and spun our encounter as ME whining. But, in reality, it was Dennis who was whining. Dennis was so stunned (concerning his treatment at Progressive Soup) that he couldn't comment again. He's used to Willis or rAtional nAtion sticking up for him.

So Dennis ran crying back to the open arms of Willis and complained about how I was mean to him. Then he, Willis and Rusty engaged in some "just friends spooning" and cuddled under the covers while Dennis cried it out and Willis comforted him by gently stroking his hair. At least that is how I (metaphorically) interpret Dennis' comment.

By the way, in case you're wondering WHY I chose to comment on a discussion on another blog... the reason is because Dennis is out there spreading lies about me on other blogs, and I (of course) don't like it. Commenting on the blogs of Conservatives (or Libertarians) does not make me a "troll" or an "everlasting blogstalker" (I bet Dennis thinks he is mighty clever in coming up with that). It makes me a person who is interested in what the other side is saying. A member of their own group does it. The fellow who ironically calls himself rAtional nAtion uSA posts on Shaw Kenawe's blog Progressive Eruptions.

rAtional banned me from his blog** (thanks to Dennis), but none of the mostly Left-leaning commenters on Shaw's have called rAtional a troll (to my knowledge), nor an "everlasting blogstalker". Perhaps it's because Liberals are more tolerant of differing points of view?

*Note 1: The comments from Progressive Soup are snippets (not the full comments); some of them are also the combination of 2 different comments. Although I have edited the comments, I did so only for the sake of brevity, and because I was choosing only the snippets that were pertinent to the point I was trying to make with this post... not to change the meaning of any of them. I have included a link to the original post so you can read the comment thread in full if there is any doubt. I don't want to be accused to lying by omission or of twisting anyone's words.

**Note 2: rAtional nAtion has retracted his ban, in that he usually publishes my comments (after telling me I was "banned forever"). Now and again he'll decide he does not like a comment I've submitted and decline to publish, but most of them get through.

SWTD #175, dDel #11.

War Criminal Hypocrite

President George W. Bush and seven of his administration's top officials, including Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, made at least 935 false statements in the two years following September 11, 2001, about the national security threat posed by Saddam Hussein's Iraq. ...an exhaustive examination of the record shows that the statements were part of an orchestrated campaign that effectively galvanized public opinion and, in the process, led the nation to war under decidedly false pretenses ~ Charles Lewis and Mark Reading-Smith writing for The Center for Public Integrity, 1/23/2008.

When commenting on other blogs I often, when the topic comes up, refer to George bush (and others in his administration) as "war criminals". The reason I believe the label is applicable is mainly due to his invasion of Iraq and authorization of waterboarding. But lately, on a another site the blogger dmarks (real name Dennis Marks) has been "calling me out" for my "hypocrisy" whenever I do it (use the "war criminal" label when referring to bush and bush administration officials).

According to Mr. Marks, if I were consistent and not a hypocrite, I'd have to acknowledge that Bill Clinton is also a war criminal, because he authorized the bombing of Yugoslavia in 1999 without UN authorization, which is the "same" thing bush did when he ordered the invasion of Iraq in 2002.

Dennis says the only reason I say bush is a war criminal while Bill Clinton is not is because bush has an "R" behind his name. Of course these accusations are patently absurd due to a few important distinctions between the bombing of Yugoslavia and the invasion of Iraq.

In order to "catch" me in my hypocrisy, Dennis asked me if "George W. Bush [was] lying when he said that Saddam Hussein had been engaged in the development of Weapons of Mass Destruction technology which was a threat to countries in the region and he had made a mockery of the weapons inspection process"?

Turns out this is actually something Nancy Pelosi said, so when I said, "yes, bush lied", Dennis responded with the following...

Dennis Marks: Bush told the truth. We all know this. However, the quote I gave you was a bit of a "sting". It proved two things: your hypocrisy, and that you never bother to check anything. (5/9/2012 AT 8:11am).

So it looks like Dennis got me good, huh? Except that the Nancy Pelosi comment is from 12/16/1998 (when Clinton was president) and actually represents what the politicians believed to be true at the time. Also, Nancy Pelosi did not then conclude that we must go to war with Iraq in order to "disarm" them, and neither did president Clinton.

Also, what Nancy Pelosi said was in line with what United Nations weapons inspector Scott Ritter reported regarding Iraq's WMD program. In August of 1998 Scott Ritter said that, absent effective monitoring, Iraq could "reconstitute chemical biological weapons, long-range ballistic missiles to deliver these weapons, and even certain aspects of their nuclear weaponization program".

The intent of Pelosi's statement was to keep up the pressure on Iraq and to signal her support for the UN inspections. The Clinton administration was in favor of containment and inspections and not of waging war. And the Clinton administration policy of keeping the pressure on Iraq paid off, because in June of 1999 weapons inspector Scott Ritter said, "when you ask the question, does Iraq possess militarily viable biological or chemical weapons? the answer is no! It is a resounding NO. Can Iraq produce today chemical weapons on a meaningful scale? No! Can Iraq produce biological weapons on a meaningful scale? No! Ballistic missiles? No! It is NO across the board. So from a qualitative standpoint, Iraq has been disarmed".

In early 2003 The UN weapons inspectors (who had been absent from Iraq for several years) were in the process of verifying if Iraq was in compliance with the UN Resolutions calling for Iraq to disarm. Chief weapons inspector Hans Blix said the inspectors "found no stockpiles of WMD and had made significant progress toward resolving open issues of disarmament". According to Blix the open issue would be resolved in a matter of months.

Then, on 3/7/2003, the head of the IAEA, Mohamed ElBaradei, confirmed that what Scott Ritter said in 1999 was true when he told the UN Security Council that, after his team had done 247 inspections at 147 sites, they found there was no evidence of resumed nuclear activities, nor any indication of nuclear-related activities at any related sites. He went on to say that evidence suggested Iraq had not imported uranium since 1990 and no longer had a centrifuge program. He concluded that Iraq's nuclear capabilities had been effectively dismantled by 1997.

So, the question is why - even though it appeared as though Iraq was complying - did bush order "shock and awe" on 3/19/2012 and a ground invasion on 3/20/2003... a mere 12 days after Mohamed ElBaradei said Iraq was complying and no WMD had been found? According to bush the mission was "to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, to end Saddam Hussein's support for terrorism, and to free the Iraqi people". How could disarming Iraq be bush's primary reason for toppling the regime of Saddam Hussein when the UN weapons inspectors on the ground were reporting that Iraq was already disarmed?

bush obviously did not "tell the truth". Given what the inspectors ON THE GROUND were saying, bush clearly LIED. So, not only did bush invade Iraq without UN authorization (violating articles 33 and 39 of the UN Charter) but he ordered an invasion to "disarm" Iraq when the UN inspectors were telling him Iraq was already disarmed.

This is quite different than what Bill Clinton did when he authorized the use of American troops in a NATO bombing campaign against Yugoslavia in 1999 to stop the ethnic cleansing and genocide of Albanians by nationalist Serbians in the former Federal Republic of Yugoslavia's province of Kosovo. Yes, Bill Clinton bypassed The UN. According to Wikipedia, "the issue was brought before the UN Security Council by Russia, in a draft resolution [that said] 'such unilateral use of force constitutes a flagrant violation of the United Nations Charter'. China, Namibia and Russia voted for the resolution, the other members against, thus it failed to pass".

So neither president's war (Clinton/Yugoslavia and bush/Iraq) was authorized by the UN, and, because of this, I think the case can be made that each is a war criminal - if UN authorization is the only criteria used in determining if a war is "legal". Certainly others HAVE argued that Bill Clinton is a war criminal (do a Google search if you don't believe me). But SHOULD each be charged with war crimes? I say "no", because Bill Clinton did obtain the authorization of another international body (NATO), whereas bush went to the UN and argued his case... and the UN specifically said "no". And not only did they say no to the invasion, they also said no to his claim that Iraq was not disarming.

To Clinton the UN did NOT say "no". To bush they did say "no".

Also, while Bill Clinton authorized bombing to stop war crimes, which resulted in the real war criminal (Slobodan Milosevic) being brought to trial, bush authorized an invasion based on a lie. Iraq had no WMD, which the UN weapons inspectors told him BEFORE he invaded. Later, when no weapons were found, bush blamed an "intelligence failure".

I think this explains why the people of Serbia consider President Clinton a hero and erected a statue statue to honor his actions that stopped the brutal Serb forces' crackdown on independence-seeking ethnic Albanians, whereas, in Iraq, one Iraqi showed his appreciation for bush's invasion by calling him a "dog" and throwing his shoe at him (which is a sign of contempt in Arab culture). According to Muntadar al-Zaidi, the Iraqi television journalist who threw the shoe bush narrowly ducked, his action was intended as "a goodbye kiss from the Iraqi people".

"This is for the widows and orphans and all those killed in Iraq" al-Zaidi shouted as he threw his second shoe. He was referring to the huge number of Iraqis killed since the war began. A peer-reviewed study from the prestigious medical journal The Lancet says approximately 1.4 people have been killed as a result of the conflict. Although the 1.4 million figure is an estimate, it is an estimate with a 95 percent confidence interval (Wikipedia: "In statistics, a confidence interval... is used to indicate the reliability of an estimate").

Also, Lila Guterman, writing in a in a January 2005 Columbia Journalism Review article stated, "I called about ten biostatisticians and mortality experts. Not one of them took issue with the study's methods or it's conclusions. If anything, the scientists told me, the authors had been cautious in their estimates".

The blogger who declared me to be a hypocrite says the Lancet's casualty estimates are "pulled from thin air with no evidence", but the real reason he objects is because pointing out how many innocent lives bush's illegal war has cost illustrates how enormous and disgusting a lie his claim that "bush told the truth and saved lives" is.

There is also the failed reconstruction, the primary purpose of which was to enrich the bush administration's contractor buddies. Given the fact that so many of these contractors over billed the government and did shoddy work on top of that, and so few of them were prosecuted - what else can one conclude?

Finally there is the bush administration's violation of the Geneva Conventions. The Third Geneva Convention, which deals with the treatment of prisoners of war, states that "physical or mental torture [as well as] any other form of coercion" is prohibited. Under the Geneva Conventions torture is defined as a "grave breach" and individuals involved can be prosecuted for war crimes.

Furthermore, during the tribunal that convened following the war in the former Yugoslavia, the International Criminal Court found that these "provisions are considered customary international law, allowing war crimes prosecution by the United Nations and its International Court of Justice over groups that have signed and have not signed the Geneva Conventions.

bush authorized torture by his own admission, although the torture he admits to authorizing is "only" the waterboarding of three individuals. But far more individuals than the three detainees who were waterboarded were subjected to torture. The photographic evidence of the torture that took place at Abu Ghraib is proof of that.

Human Rights Watch says that "Al-Qaeda detainees would likely not be accorded POW status, but the [Geneva] Conventions still provide explicit protections to all persons held in an international armed conflict, even if they are not entitled to POW status. Such protections include the right to be free from coercive interrogation, to receive a fair trial if charged with a criminal offense, and, in the case of detained civilians, to be able to appeal periodically the security rationale for continued detention".

In regards to "detained civilians", bush administration official Lawrence B. Wilkerson (chief of staff to then-Secretary of State Colin Powell) contended that there are innocent civilians being held (indefinitely) at Gitmo. Mr. Wilkerson said, "there are still innocent people there. Some have been there six or seven years". Gavin Sullivan of the European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights says "[bush] bears ultimate responsibility for authorizing the torture of thousands of individuals at places like Guantánamo and secret CIA black sites around the world".

The Iraqi people are aware of all of these factors - bush lying about WMD, the large number of deaths from collateral damage and the civil war the invasion unleashed, the human rights abuses at Abu Ghraib and detention of innocent Iraqis, the billions that went to corrupt US companies instead of to Iraqis (who could have rebuild their own infrastructure), and the theft of their oil on behalf of Western oil firms - and this is why they will NEVER erect a statue in bush's honor.

Most recently the blogger who criticizes me said that my "ignorant, personal interpretation of international law [has] crumbled to dust". The straw man he has set up is that the ONLY reason I call bush a war criminal is because he violated the UN Charter by not obtaining UN authorization to invade Iraq, but Clinton did the same, and since I don't agree I'm an ignorant hypocrite.

But, as I've just proven, aside from neither Clinton nor bush receiving UN approval for their military actions, the situations are not at all comparable. And, when Dennis says my case against bush rests "entirely" on the singular fact that bush invaded Iraq without UN authorization, he's lying. I'm not a hypocrite, and bush IS a war criminal, albeit an unprosecuted one.

SWTD #116